Talk:Proto-industrialization

Modifications reverted
Two additions of 25-7-2015 were mere "thinking aloud": not well formed sentences, not capitalised, "english" for England … I do not judge the meaning, but it could not stay in that state in the page. The corrections of "typos" of 29-4-2016 were not sufficient: the problem is much more than typos. --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

editing proto industrialization
Hello sir,a short description regarding proto industrialisation must be added which would be easily understandable."Protoindustrialisation is generally referred to the phase before industrialisation. Here,the production was not based on factories, it was done in country side." This lines should be added there.So,please give me a chance to modify it.From Reema Kumari 13:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reema Kumari (25) (talk • contribs)

Bengal
I have again reverted the insertion of the underlined text in the sentence
 * The term was introduced in the early 1970s by economic historians who argued that such developments in the Indian subcontinent and parts of Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries created the social and economic conditions that led to the Industrial Revolution.

This is a misrepresentation of the history of this theory, as outlined in the History section. The historians who introduced this term and theory in the early 1970s (Mendels, etc) were talking about parts of Europe. Later investigators described similar phenomena in other parts of the world, including South Asia. Kanguole 17:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Kanguole first of all thanks for improving the article. The term is a different argument, but I think the lede should mention something about India, since if the British conquest had not been occurred, the industrial revolution would have occurred in Mughal Bengal. Remember that textiles were the leading industry of the revolution, and as we know Bengal was the biggest producer and supplier of these textiles.--79.75.49.198 (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That theory is very much outside the mainstream. The sentence you added repeats the second sentence while seeking to imply this theory in an indirect way.  Kanguole 21:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have again reverted the addition of Bengal to the lead as undue emphasis. This term and theory were introduced in the study of economic conditions prior to industrialization in Europe. Other historians have claimed to identify similar conditions in several other parts of the world, including Perlin for south Asia, but it is undue emphasis to single out this one case. By the way, the other reference (Subrahmanyam 1998) is given the ISBN for a different book. Both books cite Perlin's article, but do not themselves mention proto-industrialization.

Finally, the wording "most aspects" reflects the cited source. Kanguole 09:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)